JUDGEMENT

This First Appeal under Section 96 of CPC has been preferred feeling aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 26-11-2016 in Civil Suit No.1B/2011( old) and No. 2B/13(present) by the 3rd Additional District Judge, Katni whereby a decree of Rs. 5,50,000/--5,50,000/- with 7.5% per annum has been decreed in favour of each of the plaintiffs/respondents.

2. The respondents/plaintiffs have filed cross-objection under Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC and claim an award of 12% interest per annum till the date of realisation of decreetal amount, award of Rs. 3, 85,000/- as interest for a period of 35 months before filing of the suit and to award cost of trial to the tune of Rs. 1,24,500/- along with cost of appeal Rs. 1,09,625/- and Rs. 15,000/- as pleaders fees and also to award Rs. 2500/- as cost of legal notice.

3. Necessary pleadings of both the parties before the trial court is being referred below :-

(a) The respondents pleaded before the trial Court that they had cordial relation with the defendant/appellant and they were acquainted with the appellant. The defendant with the consent of his brother Anand Kumar Goenka, entered into an agreement with the plaintiffs dated 20-07-2008 for the purpose of starting a joint business in partnership and all the partners agreed to make investment equally as and when needed to the tune of Rs.

10 crores and as per the said agreement all the partners were entitled to equal shares but for the preliminary expenditures the defendant had taken Rs. 5,50,000/- and Rs. 5,50,000/- from the plaintiffs as their capital. It was agreed that the remaining amount shall be paid at the time of registration of the firm. It was also pleaded by the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs and defendant in the presence of witnesses on 20-07-2008, signed the said agreement after receiving Rs. 11 lacs. It is also alleged that the defendant after execution of the agreement dated 20-07-2008 gave misleading assurances to comply with the condition of the said agreement but, the defendant did not implement the terms and conditions of the said agreement and also did not constitute the firm. The defendant also did not start the business. It is pleaded that the plaintiffs requested the defendant personally to constitute the firm and start the business, the defendant merely gave assurances but, did not comply with the conditions of agreement. Since, the plaintiffs had cordial relation with the defendant, therefore, the question of doubting the integrity of the defendant does not arise. The defendant never complied with the terms and conditions of the agreement. The defendant gave false assurance that he would comply with the condition of the agreement. The defendant had been using the sum of Rs. 11 lacs in his business and had been earning profits. The plaintiffs issued a legal notice to the defendant on 20-04-2011 demanding back the said sum of Rs. 11 lacs from his but, the defendant even after service of notice neither paid the amount nor complied with the conditions of the agreement. It is alleged that the cause of action arose on 20-07-2008 and again on 20-04-2011 when the defendant failed to repay the said amount of Rs. 11 lacs to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs therefore, have claimed Rs. 14,87,500/- from the defendant.

(b) The defendant filed written statement before the trial Court and controverting the pleadings of the plaintiffs, the defendant pleaded that there has never been any agreement between him and the plaintiffs. The defendant is running his own business since last 25 years and even at present he is running the said business. The plaintiffs have never paid any amount to the defendant. The plaintiffs did not possess any amount for investment in business of agreement dated 20-07-2008 and signature of the defendant on the said agreement is totally a false and fictitious story. The agreement dated 20-07-2008 is a forged document which does not bear the signature of defendant and his brother Anand Goenka, therefore,